Talk:Autofellatio/Archive 5

A quick comment
Please tell me why when I post a video of female ejaculation, oral sex, plain sex, tampon insertion and removal, or female masturbation, they are always deleted as non-educational. They say a drawing would do fine. However, any images that appeal to homosexuals such as autofellatio, ejaculation, male masturbation, penis pics, erection pics are left for children to view at school. My children's school currently allows anyone to view Wikipedia files openly and my daughter has reported seeing these masturbation vids at school. This has been brought up at a recent school board meeting and they said that since Wikipedia cannot filter pornographic content it will no longer be allowed. They are in the process of an IT specialist setting up a permanent block on Wikipedia. Way to go Wikipedia, we now must block all useful information to a large group to please a very small group of deviants.

Wikipedia isn't censored. I wouldn't use it if it was. Censorship is the antithesis of learning. If you censor anything, then people will never know what it is. I am glad wiki isn't because I've learned alot about physiology here. If you believe in censorship, maybe you belong using Christianopedia, or Conservopedia, whatever. Wikipedia doesn't need you idiodic pro-censorship people anyway. When I was a kid, I didn't have my life censored, and guess what? I never came across stuff like this, because I didn't look or care. So calm down. ReignMan (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC) What are you talking about wikipedia censors tons of articles, and by the way autoFelito is so educational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.222.192 (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

My two cents about the pic
So many people seem to be shocked that they would find a picture of autofellatio on the uncensored wiki page entitled "autofellatio." If you don't wish to see a guy sucking himself off, then don't type it in to a search engine on an uncensored website. I can't fathom why this is difficult to understand. You're perfectly capable of filtering the web at your end, and perfectly capable of not viewing the page. It just seems like these arguments go around and around and around. Also, to the people who say the picture is gratuitous, why isn't the drawing gratuitous? I'll tell you. The picture is clearer. Hence it becomes the target of the censorshipniks. If the drawing was as clear, then the pic wouldn't have been added. But of course a drawing of such "pornographic" clarity would draw the same fire as the pic. The censorshipniks wouldn't be satisfied with anything beyond a stick figure with a big blue dot over his crotch. Also, there are references to the guy being "very young." If the pic is indeed from a porn site, which no one doubts, then rest assured the guy is over 18. Besides, would you prefer some old dude kissing his peter? Are ugly guys more "tasteful?" The sanctimony is just so tired. Finally, if a teenager wants to see naked guys, (s)he'll see them. Real porn abounds on the net, and wiki has no responsibility to parent your kids.72.78.165.148 (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

LMAO.. Ok I love to come to this talk page and read all the people and there two cents on the picture. In reality it is not that bad and there is a lot of nudity on Wikipedia, but here is the deal. People might go to the Oral Sex article and notice it has a link to auto fellatio. Now the oral sex article doesn't have any real images on it. So why would that user expect to follow a link a page that does show something that many consider revolting.

IMO The illustration is good enough. Its not censorship its about taste. I'll use the same arguments from the Human vagina and Human penis articles (Both of which should be proper labeled and a general penis and vagina article should be created). Most biological text books do not have real pictures until the collegiate level so why does wikipedia need them.

While the image is not pornographic one must ask themselves if its necessary and since it causes so many fights why not just use the illustrated picture and be done with it. Freedom of Speech is more then just being a stubborn prick about things you don't find offensive.(74.183.38.88 (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Maybe it'll help, if I tell the contra-picture-persons, the image counts as ilegally in Germany because of pornographic content, which is not access-protected for children. I want to scale this to the picture, which is discussed here and go along with Jimbo Wales, if I say, the picture should be removed in interest of the younger users. Remember, the picture is completely sexual explicit content, which is restricted in the states for persons over 18 or 21. It is'nt a piece of art, which would maybe allow an exception and it doesn't content a scientific expression. Greets from here. --87.123.91.98 (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the photo, I'm convinced its a fake. Either that or he's got his ribcage removed. There isn't enough room for his chest and abdomen, and his upper body is way out of proportion to his legs. What healthy person has buffed-out arms but completely skinny legs? I can't believe more people haven't realized the fakiness! 67.160.174.24 (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 72.78.165.148, you have a good point, except for the fact that there are other means by which a user can reach this page. For example, an unknowing and curious user can click a wikilink in an article that doesn't describe what exactly autofellatio is. Parthian Scribe 19:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My God, this article has had this same freaking debate going on for YEARS. Seriously? 134.10.18.182 (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Freedom of Speech is more then just being a stubborn prick about things you don't find offensive. To the contrary, freedom of speech only begins to make a difference for things you do find offensive. The Wednesday Island (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I second the last 'quick comment'
What the previous poster wrote is entirely true. I think the drawing and perhaps a computer generated cartoon image (like there is in the fellatio article) would suffice - why do we need a photo of someone actually performing the act? There isn't one on the cunniligus page - that would start a panic, wouldn't it! I suggest a prompt deletion...children use wikipedia and animation is certainly different to a live photograph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.55.94.121 (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Censorship
Regarding this edit, I agree with User talk:79.106.109.10 and disagree with User:Allstarecho. According to WP:CENSORED:

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."

In this case, the toggle box is an equally suitable alternative, and putting the pic in the toggle box doesn't make the article less informative, relevant, or accurate. People can disagree with the toggle box for a number of reasons, but censorship really should not be one of them. Instead of causing censorship, it seems to me that the toggle box makes the article more tastelful, and gives the reader more options.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think we should make some kind of poll to see who's pro and who's against the toggle box.--EmpMac (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a great idea. If a consensus is demonstrated that this particular case should be an exception to the way we usually handle images, then let's add the toggle-box. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The debate over images in this article have been going on forever and a day. The consensus has always been that WP is not censored and it's always pointed out that users have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that one may find offensive. Just like with the article Muhammad, we don't remove or hide images just because some may find them offensive or unacceptable. Do you rip out pages with offensive images in a real encyclopedia? Do you fold pages with offensive images in a real encyclopedia? - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 17:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The toggle box has only been discussed very recently, and was not one of the options that's been discussed forever and a day. It's true that pages with offensive images are not folded in a paper encylopedia.  Instead, they're usually excluded altogether.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The image on this page is offensive to some, but we certainly are not in a position to say that it is objectively offensive. Therefore, talking about what we should do with "offensive images" is posterior to the question of whether we're dealing with one of those here. I personally find it offensive that people are more bothered by the sight of a man sucking himself than by images of hatred and violence. Paper encyclopedias certainly do contain images that some find offensive, and so far, that's all we're talking about here. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any Wikipedia article that features a pic at the top of gruesome violence. If such an article exists, and shows a person in the process of being beheaded (for example), then I would certainly support a toggle box at the very least.  As far as whether a "typical Wikipedia reader" would find the present image offensive, I'm not sure, but in any event there's no rule AFAIK that unoffensive images cannot be put in a toggle box so readers can choose whether to see it.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rereading my statement above, it does appear that I'm lumping you together with "people [who] are more bothered...". That wasn't fair, and I apologize. I generally am bothered that the society I live in is desensitized to violence and highly sensitive about sex, but that has nothing to do with you. I do stand by my point that it is premature to talk about handling of "offensive images," when we're dealing with an image that some find offensive. I'm not ready to apply that label in an absolute sense to any image I've seen yet. Incidentally — and I kind of hate to tell you this — if you're concerned about sexual content on Wikipedia, you might want to check out User:Privatemusings/Let's talk about sex. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yum. I find some of those pics very attractive.  But I refuse to say which ones!  :-)  Anyway, if someone wants to put one of them at the top of an article, then maybe a toggle box might be appropriate....or not.  It's probably a case-by-case thing, and certainly the same would apply to pictures showing graphic violence.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Yum!?" That wasn't why I gave you the link; bad Ferrylodge! ;) I tend to agree that a case-by-case basis is best. I think Privatemusings might be more interested in a broader policy solution, which I suspect is unlikely, at least for the foreseeable future. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you planning to tell anyone about this "poll"? Maybe an RfC would be a good way to put it together. So far, all you've said is what you'd already said, but with official-looking bold text. If you're going to set up a poll, at least format it or something, by like, stating the question clearly at the top? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll post a note at the Village Pump, and at the relevant WikiProject. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to distill the essence...
...not of autofellatio, but of the above arguments. I genuinely have a difficult time caring one way or the other about this issue, so I think I might be in a good position to try and summarize the arguments being made on both sides of the question. Here goes... I'm not making the following arguments (which contradict each other in various combinations); I'm simply trying to fairly summarize them. (There are arguments that relate to the personalities or motives of those involved; I'm choosing not to dignify those in any way.) -GTBacchus(talk) 21:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Using the photo in the first place
In discussions prior to this RfC, the question was considered of whether a photo should be in the article at all. Although outside the scope of this RfC, some of the reasoning from those discussions has come up here:

P1. Most articles about sexually explicit topics on Wikipedia do not include sexually explicit photos. Examples thematically similar to this page include fellatio, cunnilingus, deep throating, oral sex, anal-oral sex.

P2. What seems to distinguish this article from those is that there is some question of verifiability; in particular, the photo verifies that the contortion necessary to perform autofellatio is actually possible.

P3. There is the possibility of a slippery-slope argument applied to the above verifiability argument. If a photo is necessary to show that autofellatio is possible, then why not necrophilia? Why not a photo to show that a human head may be animated in some way immediately following a decapitation?

P4. Maybe those pictures or media would be good things, so let the slope slip.

Hiding the photo
H1. Citing argument P1 above, there seems to be a community consensus to avoid display of sexually explicit photos, even in articles on sexually explicit subjects. Hiding the photo would be a way to respect this prior consensus, without compromising verifiability per P2 above.

H2. Wikipedia is not censored. If the photo is acceptable in the article, then it is acceptable for people to see it without clicking through a toggle-box. There is a broad consensus against censorship.

H3. As a response to H2, hiding the photo doesn't prevent people from seeing it, so nothing is being censored.

H4. If this photo is hidden, there there is the possibility of a slippery-slope to hiding other photos or content that offends some readers.

H5. Maybe those toggle-boxes would be good things, so let the slope slip.

H6. Accessibility. We have different suggestions from different editors as to what the accessibility issue really is. It might be the case that the box would not hide for some readers, thus compromising argument P1 and H1. It might be the case that the box would not show for some readers, thus compromising argument P2 and H2. Maybe both would happen.

H7 No disclaimers. Hiding the photo would be a form of disclaimer, and there is a broad consensus against those.

Comments
So, I think the above is a summary of the chief arguments being advanced in relation to this photo. Have I missed anything important? What do people think of these arguments? Which ones are the most convincing? Personally... I mostly don't care, but I like the way H1 navigates between the shoals of P1 and P2. I think H6 might be an issue, but it's not clear exactly what's going on with that. Other thoughts? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the verifiability thing is a red herring; one can cite any number of prose sources to establish its feasibility. My argument in favor of use of the photo has little to do with verifiability, and would apply equally to other sex-related articles: it adds significant informational content, and aids understanding of the subject, in a way that complements the information content of the drawings and prose. The fact that other related articles don't have photos is merely because that's where consensus has stabilized on those articles at the moment. Dcoetzee 22:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is why I think giving this image maximum exposure in the present article will slippery slope us into the same at other related articles (not just necrophilia or decapitation, but also stuff like fellatio, cunnilingus, deep throating, oral sex, anal-oral sex, et cetera). Other than verifiability, I do not see any significant informational content in the present photo beyond what's in the drawing.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support including quality photos in the examples that you cite (with the exception of necrophilia, media of which cannot be produced without violating the law) - I haven't seen any objective reason for omitting them. If a reader reacts with discomfort to a realistic, informational depiction of a topic, that has educational value in itself. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to make people happy and cozy. All that said, I am willing to admit that in this particular article the photo and drawing are very similar. Dcoetzee 05:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe the primary argument in those articles against the display of photographs is that photos invariably look too "pornish" for a serious encyclopedia. Drawings are, in the relevant discussions, usually considered more clinical.  A related concern is providing a vehicle for exhibitionists to display their photos and try to get them included in the article.  I don't necessarily support those arguments, but my recollection is that's where the consensus is, and it has little to do with censorship.  Powers T 12:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * About photos looking "pornish", I'm afraid that some people will always find any photo of certain parts of the body and bodily functions as pornish. Some people will even argue that certain articles should include no image at all of certain things because its mere presence would be always POV (case in point, photos or even drawings of what is aborted in the Abortion article). It's just imposible to satisfy these preferences, there will always be someone who considers a certain photo to be pornish, or a culture where it will be very offensive; you are forced to draw the line at some point and wikipedia draws it at WP:NOTCENSORED: we can't guarantee that you won't find images that are offensive to you.
 * About an exhibitionist trying to get his photo included, that's not what is happening here, and it if it happens it can handled by simply replacing their photo with a different one. (I think that it has happened already, maybe in the Penis article or some article like that, with some guy trying to put a photo of his penis, with the photo having such a disposition that his penis looked much bigger than it really was. It was handled by replacing it with a more natural photo) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding H5: "Maybe those toggle-boxes would be good things, so let the slope slip." Originally I thought this was a good idea but.. as long as it was restricted to just this article. Now with this RFC we may be setting a very disruptive precedent. I can't see this being a good thing for Wikipedia as a whole. I can imagine the chaos and disruption it could cause if photos on established articles are suddenly starting to be hidden, there will be edit wars, flame wars, WP:NOTCENSORED will have to be revised, certain quality editors might even leave the project altogether over this one issue. So much time wasted that could be better spent writing better articles. And what will the media say? The media would still view it as censorship, it could negatively affect Wikipedia's reputation... but hey, at least Conservapedia will applaud us. I'm sorry but for the good of the encyclopedia let's just let this rest. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 20:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no point in asking people to re-iterate the comments they made in the RfC. Right now I count 28 respondents, of whom 1 was neutral, 9 supported the dropdown box, and 18 opposed it. To me, the consensus seems clear, but RfCs by default run 30 days, so there's no reason to rush to judgement.  Trying to argue away the RfC consensus, however, seems like the wrong direction to go. Dlabtot (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:RFC says consensus can be reached before 30 days and can be closed before 30 days. I'd say that is the case here but since I am the one that started the Rfc, I won't end it. I'll leave that to someone else. - ℅ &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 00:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant by the defualt - if it is not manually closed earlier, the bot closes it after 30 days. Dlabtot (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well despite GTBacchus' excellent summarising, the discussion seems to have petered out. I do still feel that too much of the Oppose relied heavily on WP:CENSORED without heed to what that actually says: "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content. This is not a blanket ban on removing content purely for being objectionable. Even if it were, removal is not at issue; the form of display is. And finally it has (generally) not been argued in this RFC that the image should be hidden because it is "objectionable" or "offensive" but for a range of wider, albeit related reasons. Ho hum. (By the by, I know it comes mostly from the policy shortcut, but the idea that modifying the manner in which visual content is displayed is "censorship" demeans the very concept.) Rd232 talk 05:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When I read through the discussion again, the relevant support votes boil down to "I don't like it" (but I can't get consensus to remove it completely), "It needs some kind of special disclaimer/warning" (despite WP:NDA), and "People reading sex-related articles at work/school might get in trouble" (despite our content disclaimer). There were also arguments aimed towards whether the image should be included at all, which while perhaps good arguments are not addressing this proposal. None of that is a reason to ignore the community-wide consensus represented in our content disclaimer, MOS:SCROLL, and WP:NDA.
 * Feel free to start a new RFC on whether the image should be present at all, and/or WP:BOLDly edit the article to move it "below the fold" as someone said above. Neither of those options goes against WP:Content disclaimer, WP:NDA, or MOS:SCROLL. A good argument could be made that the image "would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers" and its omission would not "cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate" (quotes from WP:NOTCENSORED), feel free to begin with that. I personally don't care whether the image is included or excluded, as long as it's done for good reasons and not "Think of the children" overreaction or other appeal to emotion. Anomie⚔ 17:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've laid out my arguments above (which are not the ones you attribute to the support votes) and my responses to opposes relying on the policies you mention. For reasons of economy, and since this RFC is essentially over, I'm not going to repeat them. Rd232 talk 20:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Per your suggestion, I moved it down. The main purpose of the image is verifiability, and that's also the purpose of the footnotes, so it makes sense that they belong together.  Whoever heard of putting the footnotes at the top of an article?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why can't you just accept that the discussion has gone against you, and the consensus is clearly against what you just did? Besides, the formatting is terrible. Dlabtot (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Anomie suggested to edit the article to move it "below the fold" as someone also said previously. I have accepted that the RFC indicates people do not want to use the "hide" default feature.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Although perhaps well-intended it's reasonable that the best image available is the lede image. -- Banj e  b oi   10:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Just for edification sake, one of the accessibility issues, I believe would be with line readers (for sight impaired users) which are not as frindly to click here functionality but do handle processing images. -- Banj e  b oi   10:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)